Allowed

Bhutto Alias Julfkar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2018WRIC/24726/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a firearm license. The appellate authority ignored the petitioner's acquittal in the underlying criminal case. The court found a manifest error of law in upholding the cancellation based only on the First Information Report without assessing public peace or safety requirements, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 25.9.2017 setting aside the petitioner's license was set aside. Matter remitted to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration with a report on criminal antecedents within two months.

Bhutto Alias Julfkar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24726 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhutto Alias Julfkar Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶7

The instructions supplied by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶8

A perusal thereof indicates that the Additional District Magistrate, (City), Allahabad after perusal of the records of the police station concerned has submitted a report that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. In one of the cases wherein the petitioner was implicated namely Case Crime No.117 of 2007, he has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the competent court of law.

¶9

The present petition is directed against the order of cancellation of fire-arm license of the petitioner by respondent No.3 on the basis of the report of SHO Cant dated 12.7.2007 which was based on the First Information Report against the petitioner.

¶10

The cancellation order was challenged in appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent court of law in Case Crime No.117 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 34 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The acquittal order dated 7.12.2011 is on record as Annexure-'5' of the writ petition.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order was brought before the Appellate Authority but it has been completely ignored while rejecting his appeal vide order dated 25.9.2017. The Appellate Authority has mechanically affirmed the order of cancellation on the ground of pendency of the criminal case.

¶12

The said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel and the order dated 25.9.2017 also substantiates the said fact.

¶13

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Authority has committed manifest error of law in passing the order of affirmation of cancellation order without adverting to the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the cancellation was based solely on the fact of lodging of the first information report.

¶14

Even otherwise, the question as to whether mere involvement in a

¶15

criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under the Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1978 AWC, 122 (Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate) . The Division Bench has relied upon the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573 wherein it has been held:-

¶16

" A licence may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act."

¶17

Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra (supra) .

¶18

There is no doubt that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner i.e. administrative authorities are bound to take appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of administrative authorities with regard to grant or cancellation of licence should not be interfered in usual course by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction unless there is illegality or arbitrariness.

¶19

In view of the above discussion, without adverting to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, noticing the fact that the Appellate Authority has committed manifest error of law in ignoring the acquittal order passed by the competent court of law, while setting aside the order dated 25.9.2017, the matter is being remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after seeking fresh report regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner. An expeditious decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.8.2018 Jyotsana

Bhutto Alias Julfkar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhutto Alias Julfkar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Star Paper Mills Limited Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahid Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Matlub Vs State of U P and 3 Others